Empowering the next generation: integrating adolescents into the Reproductive Justice movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the ethical implications of mandatory parental consent requirements for adolescents seeking sexual and reproductive health services (SRHS). Using a Reproductive Justice framework, which identifies systemic barriers to accessing healthcare services, we examine ageism as a potential factor restricting adolescents' access to SRHS. While the Reproductive Justice framework has addressed systemic issues like racism and ableism in healthcare, ageism involving adolescents has been less explored. The article challenges the pertinence of mandatory parental consent requirements-as a potential barrier-for adolescents' access to SRHS. We argue that in the specific context of SRHS (contraceptives, abortion, testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections), adolescents' autonomy (self-determination) should be respected if they request to access those services independently. From a global health perspective, adolescents have a low prevalence and uneven access to SRHS. To address the issue, we propose the integration of adolescence into the Reproductive Justice movement to empower them through education on how to access the SRHS they need.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".